Risk of harmful investments with ING

Despite the efforts made by ING to take responsibility around a number of themes, the chance of a harmful investment with ING remains high.

Hopefully the risk of harmful investments will be reduced drastically by ING in the near future.

Explanation of the ING ranking

ING does not have a thorough policy regarding the environment. The consequences for the natural world, endangered species and the rights of indigenous peoples are taken into account regarding financing of plantations and forestry. ING does not extend credit to companies that are involved in deforestation or burning of valuable areas of forest or other protected areas. Special attention goes out to human rights in production and agricultural companies. Biodiversity and indigenous peoples’ rights are taken into account when considering financing for the chemical sector and extractive industries (for example fossil fuels).

This policy has been evaluated as unsatisfactory for three reasons:

• Limited and weak criteria: ING does not use strong criteria which would avoid involvement in damaging investments, neither does it make clear which investments can or cannot be accepted;
• Limited applicability: this policy does not apply for all investments of ING. For example, it does not cover investments made by ING investment funds;
• Unclear application: ING does not show how the policy has affected the practice of the bank. It is never stated which investments are allowed and which are refused.

ING has a thorough policy regarding the exclusion of a number of controversial weapons: anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions, uranium weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons. ING also excludes all financing of companies who provide weapons to for instance countries who are under a weapon embargo or armed groups. This policy has been evaluated as satisfactory:

• Sufficiently strong criteria: the policy of ING implies clear and concrete criteria for investments in weapon industry;
• Sufficient applicability: this policy is valid for all investments of ING;
• Clear application: ING works with a list of companies that are excluded from financing as a result of its policy.

ING excludes companies that are involved in military support to countries that are on UN, EU or US weapon embargo.

Regarding freedom & democracy, ING does not have a thorough policy. ING excludes companies that are involved in military support to UN, EU or US embargoed countries. Still, despite the concern that ING has expressed regarding the situation in Burma and Sudan, the bank was not willing to exclude companies that co-operate with the Burmese dictatorship. Only damaging projects in the lands themselves are excluded. It goes without saying that this is unsatisfactory.

Regarding labour rights, ING does not have a thorough policy. However, labour rights, equal opportunities, and discrimination are taken into account regarding financing decisions in the following sectors: industry, agriculture, extractive industries (for example mining) and the chemical sector.

This policy has been evaluated as unsatisfactory for three reasons:

• Limited and weak criteria: does not make clear which investments can or cannot be accepted.
• Limited applicability: this policy is not valid for all investments of ING. It does not apply to investments in ING investment funds;
• Unclear application: ING does not show how the policy has affected the practice of the bank. It is never stated which investments are allowed and which are refused.

Examples of harmful investments by ING

In March 2007 ING participated in two credits with a combined value of US$ 9 billion for Freeport McMoRan, that operates the Grasberg mine in Papua. Freeport releases 230,000 tonnes of polluted rubble into the local river system each day. Opponents of the mine are treated harshly by the military forces hired by the company.

In April 2009, Total Capital (the financing subsidiary of Total) issued bonds for an amount of € 54 million. ING underwrote this issuing for a sum of € 5 million. Total is involved in gas extraction which supports the Burmese junta. The laying of the pipeline and the surrounding infrastructure led to serious human rights abuses.

ING is one of the selected dealers for the Billet de Trésorie Programme of EADS. Thanks to this programme, EADS can issue bonds on the French market regularly and without complex procedures.

June 2009: ING owns or manages shares in:

• Total – US$ 346.97 million: Total works with the Burmese military dictatorship to extract gas from the Yadana gas field. The project is the largest source of income for the military dictators. The laying of the pipeline in Burma has been achieved as a result of forced labour, murder and torture.
• Wal-Mart – US$ 376.3 million: The US supermarket chain Wal-Mart breaches the most basic labour rights both in its stores and in its suppliers.
• Vedanta Resources – US$ 5.37 million: The Indian mining company has illegally driven indigenous people from their land in India. The company has dumped toxic waste in India and Zambia.

More harmful investments by ING and other banks check www.banksecrets.eu